[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]

Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics

Minutes of Meeting

September 29, 1987

The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics met in Conference Room Constitution A of the Grand Hyatt Hotel, in Washington, DC, on 29 September 1987. For clarity in presentation with reference to the printed agenda, events recorded here are not necessarily in the same chronological order in which they appeared.

Members Present:
Hans Frauenfelder (Chairman), Orson L. Anderson, Henry H. Barschall, Robert S. Bauer, Robert T. Beyer, Peter B. Boyce, Robert Beck Clark, William L. Duax, Frederick H. Fisher, Val Fitch, Kenneth W. Ford (Executive Director), Roderick M. Grant (Secretary), Robert G. Greenler, Donald F. Holcomb, James A. Krumhansl, David Lazarus, Harry Lustig, James S. Murday, James A. Purdy, Jarus W. Quinn, Robert Resnick, Edward N. Sickafus, F. Dow Smith, A. F. Spilhaus, Jr., Murray Strasberg, Nagalingam Suntharalingam, Martin Walt, Jack M. Wilson, Kurt F. Wissbrun

Members Absent:
Peter M. Bell, Esther M. Conwell, W. W. Havens, Jr., Mary K. Hudson, Herwig Kogelnik, Arlo U. Landolt

Member Society Officers Present:
Howard Voss (AAPT) Catherine M. Foris (ACA), Elaine P. Osterman (AAPM), Jack Singleton (AVS), Nancy L. Hammond (AVS)

Guests:
John E. E. Baglin (MRS), H. William Koch, Former Executive Director, AIP

AIP Staff:
Gerald F. Gilbert, Treasurer; Robert H. Marks, Managing Director of Publishing; John S. Rigden, Managing Director of Physics Programs; William J. Condell, Jr., Manager, Washington Office; Bernard Dolowich, Controller; David Kalson, Manager, Public Information Division; Lawrence T. Merrill, Assistant to the Executive Director; Paul A. Parisi, Manager, Special Projects; Nathalie D. Wagner, Assistant to the Secretary; Sallie A. Watkins, Senior Education Fellow

1. Convene – Roll Call

The meeting was called to order at 8:30 a.m. in Constitution A of the Grand Hyatt Hotel by Chairman Frauenfelder.

2. Report of the Secretary

  1. Minutes of 27-28 March 1987 Meeting

    The minutes were offered for approval by Secretary Grant. As there were no additions or corrections, they were approved by acclamation.

3. Report of the Chairman

  1. Actions of the Executive Committee since March 1987

    Frauenfelder noted the report of Actions of the Executive Committee which had been distributed with the Agenda. There were no questions from the floor.

  2. Interim Report of the Committee on Composition of the Executive Committee

    This was not discussed.

4. Report of the Executive Director

  1. Activities at AIP since March 1987

    Ford briefly reviewed his 21 September memo to the Governing Board which covers recent developments of general interest. He added that the other officers would comment on their specific areas. One of three binders that had been distributed contains committee reports. He plans to summarize actions, recommendations, and comments of the committees in this way in the future.

    The problem of use of our abstracts by IEE without permission continues. He and Marks will visit the IEE offices in the U.K. in November to discuss this further.

  2. Organization Chart

    Ford noted the organization chart in Binder A, AIP 1987 Overview and Planning. An Information Services Division under Publishing Branch I has been added since this was prepared.

  3. Committee Structure, Staff Liaisons

    Quinn noted the revised AIP committee structure and wondered if this creates confusion regarding which committees report to the Board and which report to management.

    Ford thought there was no confusion. He said that former subcommittees of the Committee on Educational Policy are now committees, reporting to the Executive Director. Their reports and comments will be forwarded to the Governing Board.

    Sickafus made the following motion, which was seconded by Boyce. Following extensive discussion, reported below, the motion was CARRIED, with one NO vote, and no abstentions.

    MOVED that the following former Subcommittees of the Committee on Educational Policy should henceforth be Advisory Committees reporting to the Executive Director of the Institute:

    1. Committee on Education and Employment Statistics and Career Placement
    2. Committee on History of Physics
    3. Committee on Physics Today
    4. Committee on Public Information.

    Strasberg said he had held a meeting of the Committee on Society Services on the previous afternoon. The committee felt that one reason it would be better to report to the Executive Director rather than to the Governing Board was that there would be a more direct line to AIP staff. Some of the issues they are concerned with should not take up the time of the Board.

    Lustig asked what is meant by reporting.

    Strasberg said he interpreted it as providing recommendations to the Executive Director. He thought the report can be addressed to both the Executive Director and to the Governing Board.

    Spilhaus asked how membership on these committees is to be determined.

    Grant said that at present the membership of subcommittees is selected by the parent committee; the proposed change returns the responsibility for nominations for these former subcommittees to the Nominating Committee.

    Sickafus said he does not feel that this creates a problem, but it does mean that the Board sometimes will find out after action already has been taken.

    Quinn said he opposes the motion as he feels it should be made clearer who reports to whom; past experience when committees reported to the (Executive) Director showed that there were problems with this practice. The Governing Board had problems monitoring the responsiveness of management to committee recommendations.

    Smith said committee reports should be circulated to all of the Governing Board on a regular basis.

    Clark thought that the proposed system allows for both options. The committees report to the Board, but management has the opportunity to respond directly to recommendations.

    The vote on the motion, as recorded above, was taken at this point.

  4. Overview and Planning Report
  5. 1988 Budget Guidelines

    Ford, referring to his 21 September memo to the Governing Board on this subject, said that though specific details of the budget are delegated to the Executive Committee, he wants Governing Board discussion on general guidelines to be used in preparing the budget.

    For instance, it is proposed that the long term investment income be separately budgeted and applied to reserves, and that the short-term investment income be added to operating revenue. The operating budget is then built to provide for zero or slightly positive net income.

    In the personnel area, the Executive Committee on the previous day approved a salary matrix for next year, which maintains a merit basis. This matrix trims the average raise, but keeps them adequate to prevent AIP from backsliding in the local job market.

    Lustig said he appreciates this overall budget guideline proposal. A number of points deserve much discussion before a decision is made. The goal of investment of short- and long-term funds is good but difficult to achieve. Overall goals may take longer to achieve.

    Ford said we now have about $17 million in reserve funds against the currently established goal of $23 million. AIP differs from the Societies in terms of a higher level of risk we face (we have no member dues), and is always facing a possible major change in revenue. Prudent planning requires substantial reserves.

    Greenler asked if this means that AIP would not budget future receipts for proposed programs unless it were certain of support. Ford said it does mean this.

    Fitch said that he feels that Physics Today is one of the most important things that AIP does: it ties the entire physics community together. It should get top attention.

    Ford agreed; there is no thought of cutting back on this. He said he thought there was no need for formal action on the matter of budget guidelines, but he welcomes comments from the Board.

    The following motion was made by Quinn, seconded by Sickafus, and CARRIED, with two abstentions.

    MOVED that the Governing Board endorse 1988 Budget Guidelines as contained in the memo from Ford to the Governing Board dated 21 September 1987.

  6. Long Range Planning

    Ford referred to the document Binder A, AIP 1987 Overview and Planning. It should be considered as a transitional planning document. He hopes to do a five-year plan for the Institute next year. Section 1 provides a profile of AIP. He will have this section bound separately, as it may be useful to Member Society officers. He called attention to the one-sentence mission statement on page 1-1, which the Executive Committee thought was good.

    Wissbrun thought this was a very useful summary of AIP activities and hopes that Ford plans to continue it.

5. Space for Headquarters
and

  1. Space for Publishing Center (integrated discussion)

    Frauenfelder gave a brief history. The matter of headquarters space has been of concern for some time. AIP will soon now operate at five locations. Renting additional space to meet expanding needs adds to overall expense. A move of our publishing operations from Long Island had been ruled out earlier. He reviewed the action of the ad hoc Space Needs Committee which voted in favor of keeping AIP headquarters in New York. The Executive Committee then asked for additional information from management, and considered the matter at its September meeting. The result was the recommendation of a move of AIP headquarters to Washington. The major question is how AIP should grow and what its future directions should be.

    Frauenfelder said that the decision of New York vs. Washington cannot be made today. He feels that the issue must first go to the boards of the Member Societies for discussion and feedback. He would like Ford to discuss why he favors Washington and would like Marks to review the Woodbury situation.

    Ford reminded the Governing Board that this discussion has been going on for several years. Input from the Member Societies has been solicited at several points. Landauer Associates delivered a study in March 1987. This study looked at the financial issues. This summer AIP management was asked to examine various scenarios and to look at what management and organizational changes would be involved in any move. Subsequent to the September Executive Committee meeting, he has heard from the Public Information and History advisory chairs on the matter of the move. Individual staff members have commented as well. He has copies of these responses available (and distributed them at the coffee break).

    Ford then reviewed Binder B, Future Location of AIP Headquarters. Included are the following:

    • Projections and deployment of personnel for three possible scenarios based on doubling of AIP staff and activities by the year 2000.

      He thinks everything in Physics Programs should be together and proposes they move to Washington, as interactions are beneficial. (Now the Education Division is in Woodbury and the other Divisions are in New York.) He proposes that the financial operations stay together, but perhaps not move to DC. (This is under internal discussion at AIP, so is not a firm recommendation.)

    • Distribution time of AIP management.

      He still envisions a highly unified operation with no major changes in management and Inside AIP helping to keep a sense of community. Officers would divide their time more asymmetrically. Time projections are about the same for various options.

    • Factors affecting space decisions.

      He reviewed this list that he had compiled after the ad hoc meeting of the Space Needs Committee.

    • Summary of Society responses.

    Purdy said he understood that after the ad hoc committee vote the societies were to be asked for formal statements. Was this done?

    Ford said this was not done. Suntharalingam said the report of the ad hoc Committee on Space Needs was to be given to the Board. What has happened to it?

    Ford said the report was quite brief, and that it was sent only to the Executive Committee, and that he was delinquent in not distributing this to the Governing Board.

    Lazarus said he has been uncomfortable with the scenario from the beginning. The premises of AIP growth are based on unknowns, beyond our control. The recent past should not be used to predict a doubling of staff and programs in the future. He is also unmoved by the argument that we should buy now as land is increasing in value. There are strong potential risks in any move. He thinks we do not need to do anything.

    Wilson said that AIP operations are now inefficiently split among five sites. The point is we do not have enough space for our existing needs. The proposal to do nothing is the worst.

    Beyer said he was a member of the ad hoc Committee. He thought that because of the split vote, a majority report and a minority report would be issued, but this was not done. Apparently the Executive Committee rejected the committee's work. He thinks that votes in the ad hoc committee and Executive Committee should be taken to mean not a change of opinion but a change of view.

    Franz asked if there had been discussion of gradually moving functions to DC. If everything were done at once, many valued employees would be lost. Perhaps phasing the move over a 10-year period would be possible and less disruptive.

    Singleton said the entire Governing Board has received a letter from him in the past week which is an opinion from the AVS Board. He is happy that the discussion is being continued beyond this meeting, and all Societies should respond. The AVS feels that this proposed move is jumping the gun. The AVS is concerned about staying alive as a viable Society. As a not-for-profit organization, the Society cannot pay large severance costs and cannot afford to disrupt their staff, which would happen should a move from New York take place.

    Boyce said we have to be careful to separate short term disruptions from a 30-year decision, which affects the long term survivability of our discipline. The AAS has moved twice in seven years and came out better for it. We should look beyond the short term and look at the long range role of AIP.

    Sickafus said that one thing missing from the Landauer report is an analysis of the impact on staff at various grade levels. He thinks this is important to consider. None of the material in Binder B previously was available to the Societies; they should have a chance to review it. Also, the Societies need Ford's historical synopsis of the current scenarios.

    Smith said we should not get too hung up on the numbers in the two votes. The comments in the last three pages of the binder fairly reflect the views of the ad hoc Committee. The Executive Committee was not operating in a vacuum. It was the opinion of a number of Executive Committee members that we knew as much as we could know about these concerns. He hopes the Governing Board can make a decision. He thinks giving this report to people who have not been privy to the range of discussions would be difficult.

    Lustig said there are many other factors not in this binder. Most members of the Governing Board wear two hats: considering what is best for AIP and also what is best for the individual Member Societies. They have to weigh whether what is good for AIP is good for their own Societies; it is a complex and difficult question. The Member Societies need to review the issues and their councils to consider them.

    Marks reported on the Woodbury situation. 12 acres were purchased on our present site in 1979 and were thought to be adequate for the foreseeable future. However, our special use permit has been revoked. This means that we can stay there as long as desired, but we would have to get a variance to do further building, and it is quite uncertain that we could succeed in getting it. We now need more space. A 3 to 10 year lease has been signed for 17,500 square feet of rental space nearby. This is an interim move which will give additional space for publishing and services. The move is scheduled to take place in early December. Production I, Publication Billing, and the Education Division will move to the rental facility.

    Beyer expressed concern over any possible financial loss to the Institute if the Soviets withdraw the translation program. How would this affect the space needs?

    Marks said the Soviet program is factored in with the projections; it is about 20,000 pages per year, or 13% of the total publishing program. We need to get the renewal of our contract with the Soviets settled before embarking on an ambitious expansion program.

    Suntharalingam asked if any land had been located. Marks said there is land near Roosevelt Field, owned by Hofstra University, that could be of interest and there are other possibilities. Our broker is actively looking. Management is not ready to make any recommendations.

    Smith asked whether, in view of the fact that the investigation is moving forward, the Governing Board should authorize the Executive Committee to make a purchase if something is found.

    Frauenfelder said he would prefer someone not on the Executive Committee to make such a motion. He also thought once something was found, they should come to the Board quickly with the information.

    The following motion was then made by Lustig and seconded by Wissbrun. Following the discussion, as reported below, the motion was WITHDRAWN.

    MOVED that the Executive Committee be authorized to purchase land in the vicinity of Woodbury, appropriately zoned and with sufficient acreage for anticipated needs.

    Suntharalingam asked what total acreage would be needed if most AIP activities were to be located there, and a headquarters office maintained in New York.

    Marks said we have talked about 20 acres but could consider 12-30 acres, depending on the location. We would build for five-year needs, with provision for expanding. We also would look at the possibility of renting space, depending on the area and the cost effectiveness.

    Lazarus said he wished to speak against the motion. We do not know enough to know what will be needed. Electronic journalism needs would be very different and would require a different sort of staff. He does not want to make a major financial commitment.

    Sickafus said he opposes the motion also, for similar reasons. The Board is considering actions that will affect AIP for many years.

    Wilson said he would be opposed to doing anything until we settle the issue of headquarters. He thinks this has been extensively studied and is disappointed that no decision will be made now, but the Woodbury issue has not been extensively studied.

    Marks said our recent rental will take care of the immediate needs. He thinks that the land will not go up that much in the next six months.

    Smith said his intent was to allow the Executive Committee to act if an opportunity comes along, not to accelerate, but to permit a move forward.

    At this point, as the sentiment was opposed, the motion was withdrawn.

    Frauenfelder then suggested that a motion to reaffirm keeping the publishing center on Long Island would reassure the staff.

    Beyer made the following motion, which was seconded by Holcomb, and, after extensive discussion, reported below, was DEFEATED.

    MOVED that the Governing Board reaffirm its intent that the AIP publishing center remain on Long Island.

    Grant noted that this motion had been made and approved at a previous meeting.

    Lazarus said he does not understand the purpose of this motion. It is easier to replace people on Long Island than in New York. He would prefer to have no constraints.

    Holcomb said it is important to make clear that this motion is consistent with the feeling of the ad hoc Committee. We need to consider all aspects, including land purchase, and bring these to the Governing Board, but not give authority to the Executive Committee at this time. There was no enthusiasm in the ad hoc Committee for moving to a remote site. Now to imagine moving the established operation to another location seems to make no sense.

    Ford said if the sentiment of the Governing Board is to maintain the publishing center in Long Island, it would be good to have this formal affirmation for the benefit of the staff.

    Quinn said a motion giving assurance for a temporary period which could change in a few months has no substance, whereas motion to buy land would say something.

    Frauenfelder clarified that the motion simply states that there is no intention to move the publishing center from Long Island.

    The motion was then voted on and defeated.

    Sickafus then read the following motion, which was seconded by Wilson. After discussion (reported below), the motion was CARRIED, with one NO and one ABSTENTION.

    MOVED that the Governing Board request that:

    1. Ford notify the Member Societies that the Executive Committee has voted 6 to 1 (with one member absent) to recommend to the Governing Board that AIP Headquarters be relocated from New York City to the Washington DC area;
    2. Ford send to the Member Societies a copy of the report "The Future Location of AIP Headquarters", and a historical synopsis (as given during the Governing Board meeting) that outlines the events leading to the Executive Committee action;
    3. Ford make himself available to the Boards of Directors of the Member Societies to review with them the developments to date and to answer their questions; and
    4. Ford request the Boards of Directors of the Member Societies to examine this information and advise the AIP Governing Board whether they can support this proposed move.

    Spilhaus said he felt uncomfortable with this motion. We should be looking forward to physics in the next 30 years. He is not sure it is a good principle for the Governing Board members to ask the Member Societies to instruct them.

    Lazarus said he is in favor of the motion. AIP is an odd and independent organization which interacts with most of the Member Societies, especially those that do a lot of publishing. It is of intimate concern to APS. This has not been discussed in the APS Executive Council, and APS Governing Board members have not been instructed as to how to vote.

    Sickafus said the implication is that time should be allowed for each Member Society Board to meet.

    Grant said that Lazarus may not be instructed, but he certainly has been well informed about the concerns of AIP and APS. He does not know or understand why the APS has not discussed this, nor other Member Societies. Havens chaired the ad hoc Committee. It is the responsibility of Board members to take these concern to their Societies.

    Purdy said he wants clarification of the motion: he understands it to mean that representatives get a clear statement from their Societies, but that they would not be directed to vote in any particular way.

    Sickafus said it means that the representatives get instructions from their Societies but it does not require them to follow them. The mission of this body is to put the Member Societies and service to Societies first. This monumental decision needs input from the Societies. A final decision must be made according to the best business interests of AIP.

    Holcomb asked if we can establish when the Governing Board will take action.

    Frauenfelder said it does not have to be on the motion. They can be requested to respond in time for the March Governing Board meeting.

    Smith said he came to the meeting thinking the clock had run out; he thinks we have been torpedoed. He thinks the motion is just motherhood. The material has been distributed. He is very disappointed not to vote on this matter.

    Singleton said that since the ad hoc Committee report was not made available to the Member Societies, this has to be done. It is very important; without the support of the Societies AIP is going to be in a rather serious position.

    Frauenfelder said the motion makes it clear that the information is to reach everyone. It is a decision that is important for many years.

    Boyce said that he is disturbed at the narrow view expressed in the letters. He hopes we can take a more statesmanlike position.

    After clarifying amendments, the vote on the motion was taken as reported.

6. International Affairs

  1. Proposed New Committee on International Affairs

    Beyer noted the history of the ad hoc Committee on International Affairs, which recommended the formation of a new standing Committee. The most interesting thing about the two meetings of the ad hoc Committee was learning of existing programs not heretofore known to the others: a useful clearinghouse. There is also a proposal for a new category of membership in AIP. It is time for AIP to organize its international aspects.

    A vote was taken on the following recommendation from the ad hoc Committee, and the Executive Committee. The recommendation was unanimously CARRIED.

    MOVED that a standing Committee on International Relations be established, on recommendation from the Executive Committee and the ad hoc Committee on International Relations, with a charge to foster…

    1. Communication among physicists worldwide through publications and other means;
    2. Activities relating to individuals (students, post-docs, visiting professors, and industrial physicists) who come from abroad or who are going abroad; and
    3. Relations with foreign scientific groups and industries.

  2. Proposed New International Associate Category

    Beyer reviewed this proposed AIP membership category, as recommended by the Executive Committee. To create this category, Article III of the Constitution would need to be amended, and an Article added to the Bylaws. It could include a national or international scientific or engineering society whose principal office and operations lie outside of the U.S.A. and whose aims and goals are commensurate with those of AIP.

    Ford said the idea arose from discussions with the Physical Society of Japan. The possibility of their becoming an Affiliated Society was suggested, but this was not well-received. This proposed new category would facilitate closer ties with such organizations.

    Greenler asked if the intent is for organizations such as Canadian ones to be invited to join this category.

    Beyer said we have found foreign organizations in the past shying away from too close identification with U.S. organizations. This would give them a useful category. If a Canadian society were to propose this, he would see no harm in it.

    Strasberg said there is a concern as to whether AIP could become involved in international politics. We need to decide now if international politics will play a role.

    Frauenfelder thought there was no need to rule on this now, but rather wait until the need arises.

    Spilhaus said that the Governing Board had just established a new Committee on International Relations. It would be better to have this reviewed by this committee.

    Lustig said he supported this referral. It may be a good thing but he would like to see further study.

    The following motion, as recommended by the Executive Committee, was DEFEATED.

    MOVED that the Governing Board amend the Constitution and Bylaws so as to add an International Associates category of membership in the Institute.

    The following motion was made by Spilhaus, seconded by Franz, and unanimously CARRIED.

    MOVED that a proposal for a new category of membership in AIP, "International Associates", as recommended by the Executive Committee be forwarded to the newly formed Committee on International Relations for their consideration and recommendation.

    Barschall asked if this should also go to the Committee on Constitution and Bylaws. Grant said he would look into this.

The meeting recessed for lunch at 12 noon and reconvened at 1:00 p.m.

7. Rules Governing Associate Member Societies

Ford noted the interest of the Materials Research Society in Associate Member Society status. He proposes a change in the Rules for Membership in this category. This requires Governing Board action. He itemized the proposed revisions (given in the motion), as approved at the 28 September Executive Committee.

Ford next introduced John E. Baglin, MRS Vice President.

Baglin said the MRS values its association with AIP. Having the right to propose motions is a valuable thing. He would take this revision, if adopted, to his Council in November.

The following motion, a recommendation of the Executive Committee, was stated by Grant. He noted that other criteria and the privileges and responsibilities of an Associate Member Society remain as previously adopted. The motion was unanimously CARRIED.

MOVED that the Governing Board adopt the following as Rules concerning Associate Member Societies:

  1. "The surcharge for work done on behalf of Associate Member Societies shall be 7.5% for work done in-house, and 5% for work done outside AIP;
  2. Physics Today shall be available to members of Associate Member Societies at one-half the member price charged to members of Affiliated Societies;
  3. The Governing Board extends to Member and Associate Member Society officers invitations to attend meetings of the Governing Board as non-voting participants. Non-voting participants may take part in discussions during Governing Board meetings, and may suggest motions." (Amended Rule 1.A.4.)

8. Matters Related to Affiliated Societies

Due to insufficient time, this was not discussed.

9. AIP Logo

Ford asked Kalson to present the recommendation of the ad hoc Logo Committee and the Executive Committee.

Kalson gave brief background, and introduced the proposed new logo. He distributed examples of its application in various AIP documents to the Board. The designer, Michael Dillon, previously had won awards for his work.

Ford said he had talked with staff members who have the most to do with the materials that are circulated. The present logo is out of date, both as to the physics depicted in its symbol and its graphic design.

The following motion from the Executive Committee was CARRIED, with three NO and one ASTENTION.

MOVED that a new AIP logo as proposed by an ad hoc committee chaired by Ford and presented at this meeting be adopted.

10. Report of the Audit Committee

Beyer reviewed the report of the 1986 Audit Committee.

The first recommendation was unanimously CARRIED, with no further discussion.

MOVED that the 1986 Audit by Touche Ross and Company be accepted, as recommended by the Audit Committee.

Beyer reviewed the second recommendation, which was unanimously CARRIED.

MOVED that AIP management be authorized to negotiate with Touche Ross and Company to do the 1987 Audit, as recommended by the Audit Committee.

Beyer reported that the Executive Committee has asked management to investigate the possibility of changing auditors for the 1988 Audit, and to look actively for a new firm. (Touche Ross began doing AIP audits in 1980.)

11. Report of the Committee of Society Treasurers

Smith, Chair of this Committee, said the Committee meets once a year. They made three specific recommendations at their September meeting, as follows:

  1. Suggested that the Committee on Publishing Policy review the policy of many societies of offering special rates on journals to other Member Societies.
  2. Suggested that long- and short-term investment income be separately reported. This is planned for the 1988 budget.
  3. Using a unit value system for tracking of investments. AIP has software to do this and it is moving forward.

They also recommended that the term "estimated costs" replace "quoted prices". This phrase better reflects the meaning of the numbers.

12. Report of the Treasurer

  1. Status of AIP Investments

    Gilbert referred to the Investment Status Report, which contains an Analysis of 1986 Investment Income, an Analysis of 1987 Investment Income (first six months), and the Market Value of Long-Term Investments. As of June 1987, the net value of our investments was $l5.7 million. Since then we added an additional $2 million. As of 24 September, the long term investment totals $17 million. The goal is $24 million.

    Krumhansl, Chair of the Investment Advisory Committee, noted that AIP has a conservative position. His letter of 29 July 1987 to Gilbert recommended no change in the portfolio at this time.

  2. Developments with IRS Audit

    Gilbert called attention to his memo to the Governing Board which reviewed the current effort of the IRS ("employee tax liability audits") to reclassify independent contractors as employees, and the developments and ramifications for the Institute. Our attorney William J. Lehrfeld submitted a brief to the IRS on 15 September on this subject. The brief was detailed and contained many exhibits. It asks for a conference with the IRS to discuss the details.

  3. Developments with Soviet Translation Program

    Gilbert read his notes on his meeting with a Soviet attorney from VAAP (Soviet copyright agency) concerning our agreement covering the translation program. This is an important source of revenue for AIP, and their notice to him that they wish to change the contract is of concern. The situation is being reviewed by Management. Gilbert emphasized to the Soviet attorney that we must have a written draft of proposed changes as soon as possible.

  4. Financial Statement for Six Months Ended 30 June 1987

    Gilbert distributed and reviewed the statement of revenue and expense for the first six months of 1987 (attached as Appendix A); this excludes activities for Member Societies. Total operating revenue in this period was $10,447,389 compared to $9,419,457 in 1986. Subscription revenue increased about $520,000 in 1987, resulting from increased subscription rates. Under Operating Expense, Publishing Expense increased about $1,200,000 in 1987 (primarily the result of work done on the pages in the second quarter which were published in the third quarter). Net Operating Expense in the first six months of 1987 is $488,600, while budgeted Net Operating Expense for the year 1987 is $395,700. Net Investment Revenue for the first six months of 1987 is $828,000, about evenly divided between short-term investment revenue and long-term investment revenue. Total Excess Revenue is $339,400 for the six month period. The financial results at 30 June are not indicative of end of the year results since Net Revenue for the second six months depends primarily on the number of pages published and Net Investment Revenue.

    Gilbert then reviewed the balance sheet. Cash in the Operating Fund in the amount of $10,456,478 represents the funds in our cash management account; it also includes short-term cash investments in our investment accounts. Accounts Receivable ($1,780,257) consists mainly of the following: page charges, advertising sales, and reprint sales totaling about $820,000; and work performed for DOE, FIZ, and EI contracts, Soviet royalties, grants, etc. totaling about $960,000. Property, Plant, and Equipment (book value) totals $6,613,074. Long-term investments ($15,478,513) are marketable securities carried at cost. Total assets amount to $36,739,053.

    Quinn asked about the projected number of non-member subscriptions. Gilbert said a decrease of 4% is budgeted, and this figure seems to be holding up.

13. Report of the Director of Publishing

  1. Computers in Physics

    Marks said the first issue will come out in November. Every Member Society will offer this at a special discount.

  2. Status of Subscription Fulfillment System

    Marks said work is being done on several fronts. Software packages are being evaluated. The AAPT system is being looked at. The AIP programmers continue to debug the AZTECH modules. Those in charge of the development feel the basic design is capable of handling all of the needs. They hope to start a parallel operation in February.

  3. Electronic Publishing Developments

    AIP staff continues to monitor developments in automatic page makeup. They have identified two systems and hope to have further information in early 1988.

14. Report of the Director of Physics Programs

  1. Overview, Plans

    Rigden said he feels a real opportunity exists in the Physics Programs. All Societies have highly gifted individuals, as do the Corporate Associates and the entire industrial community. The internal part–the various divisions–has talented people. Interchange among societies already exists. He noted that AGU is involved in a history project and AVS is working with Public Information. He thinks if we all work together, we can do good things.

  2. Committee on Physics Programs

    Rigden said he has attended one meeting of this Committee. The role of the Committee is now open, and he hopes to get a better idea of how it fits in as time goes along.

  3. Senior Education Fellow

    The new Senior Education Fellow, Dr. Sallie A. Watkins, was introduced. She said any new position brings an open slate. She is creating a range of scenarios. She has identified problem areas: 1) science learning for children of elementary school age; 2) attracting minorities and women to physics. She will report on actions at the next Governing Board meeting.

  4. Meggers Award

    Rigden said guidelines have been established for the first award, and a committee is being established.

  5. International Physics Olympiad

    Wilson said the 1987 Olympiad was held in Jena, East Germany. Three levels of qualifying exams reduced the applicant pool to 20 who received an intensive training session. Of these, five were selected to go to Jena. They received three bronze medals and one honorable mention. The Executive Committee has approved AIP sponsorship of the 1994 Olympiad, to be hosted by the U.S.A. The program is supported by many Member Societies and Corporate Associates.

15. Future Meetings

Future scheduled meetings were noted:

3-4 Dec. 1987 (6 pm Thurs.-4 pm Fri.) Executive Committee, New York, NY
11-12 Feb. 1988 (6 pm Thurs.-4 pm Fri.) Executive Committee, New York, NY
18-19 Mar. 1988 (1 pm Fri.-l pm Sat.) Governing Board, Woodbury, LI
9-10 June 1988 (6 pm Thurs.-4 pm Fri.) Executive Committee ,Washington, DC
8-10 Sept. 1988 (9 am Thurs.-1 pm Sat.) Executive Committee, Woods Hole, MA
16 Oct. 1988 (12 noon-5 pm Sun.) Executive Committee, IBM Watson Labs, NY
16-17 Oct. 1988 (Sun. 6 pm-4 pm Mon.) Governing Board, IBM Watson Labs, NY
18-19 Oct. 1988 Corporate Associates, IBM Watson Labs, NY

16. Other Business

There was no other business.

17. Executive Session

18. Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.m.